JUDGMENTMOHAMMAD MEHMUD ASLAM PIRZADA (CHAIRMAN).- Mohammad Riaz Khan, ex-Patwari has filed this appeal u/s 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, against the impugned orders dated 31.7.1986 and 6.10.1986, passed by the respondents. The appellant has impleaded the A.C./Collector, Pasrur District Sialkot and Commissioner of Gujranwala, as respondents. Through this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned orders be set aside and he be ordered to be taken on duty.
2. The salient features of this case preferably are that the Respondent No.1 ordered the retirement of the appellant u/s 12(ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, on completion of 25 years qualifying for pension and other benefits, by his dated 31.7.1986. Operative portion of which reads as under:- " Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (11) of Section l2 of the Punjab, Assistant Commissioner/Collector, sub- Division Pasrur hereby direct in the public interest that Mohammad Riaz Khan, Patwari shall retire from service with immediate effect or with effect from the date of expiry of leave preparatory to retirement - admissible to him if such leave is applied for by him within 15 days from the dale of this order and the same is granted to him."
The appellant filed appeal which to stood dismissed by Respondent No.2 on6,10.1986, Operative portion of which reads as under:- " The service record of the Petitioner, especially for the years 1970, 1971, 1972 is very bad. In the opinion of the Committee, it is not a fit case for re-instatement in service. The impugned order is upheld and the petition is hereby dismissed."
Hence this appeal.
3. We have heard the arguments advanced by the parties and also perused the record of the case minutely with the assistance of the departmental representatives.
4. During the course of the arguments learned counsel for the appellant raised the following points:
1. That the appellant has not completed 25 years of service on 31.7.1986.
2. That no Show Cause Notice was served upon the appellant.
3. That the service record of the appellant did not warrant his compulsory retirement;
5. On the other hand learned District Attorney has strongly repelled the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that the impugned orders are fully justified and may be maintained.
6. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and find that as far as points No.(l) and No.(2) above, are concerned, there is no force in the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant joined the Department on 13.10.1960, therefore, he completed his 25 years service on 13.10.1985. Similarly the service of show cause notice was not a mandatory provision prior to the amendment which was made in the year 1987. While dealing with point No.3, we find force in the contention so made by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is apparent from the material available on file of the appeal that the appellant was retired on the basis of unsatisfactory record of service and on the recommendations of the Committee constituted to review the cases of employees who had completed 25 years service qualifying for pension and other benefits. We have gone through the service record of the appellant vis-a-vis, the ACRs for the years 1970,1971 and 1972, on the basis of which the appellant has been retired u/s 12(ii) of the Act. Although the ACRs for the years 1970, 1971 and 1972 are blemished yet urfind no supporting document by which the said adverse reports had been communicated to the appellant. The previous as well as subsequent record of the appellant till the date of his compulsory retirement, is blotless. All these mitigating circumstances lead me to the irresistible conclusion that it will be a sheer injustice to throw a man from peaceful service with a stigma of bad record.
In the light of the above analysis of the case us are fully convinced that the impugned order of retirement u/s 12(ii) of the Act passed by Respondent No.1 is not a justified order and cannot be maintained. We therefore, proceed to accept the appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the appellant into service as he has never been retired. The period in between the compulsory retirement and reinstatement shall be treated as leave without pay. There will be no order as to costs.